IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JEFFREY F. RUDERT,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:12-cv-818 

 Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge King

GARY C. MOHR, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court for the initial screen of the

Complaint required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e), 1915A. For the reasons that

follow, it is recommended that the Complaint be dismissed for failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Marion Correctional

Institution [“MCI”], seeks injunctive and monetary relief against various

officials of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and MCI

in connection with plaintiff’s grievances. Specifically, plaintiff

complains that he has not been provided grievances forms as requested by

him, that his grievances have been ignored or not responded to in timely

fashion and that his grievances have not been resolved properly.

It is well-established that the due process clause of the United

States Constitution does not confer upon prison inmates a right to an

effective prison grievance procedure. Walker v. Michigan Dept. Of

Corrections, 128 Fed. Appx. 441, 2005 WL 742743, **3 (6th Cir. April 1,

2005). Moreover, the fact that plaintiff has filed this action indicates

that he has not been denied his First Amendment right to petition the

Case: 2:12-cv-00818-JLG-NMK Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/09/12 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
government for a redress of grievances or his right of access to the

courts. See Antonelli v. Sheahan, 81 F.3d 1422, 1430-31 (7th Cir. 1996).

Furthermore, the alleged unavailability of an effective prison grievance

procedure simply fails to involve the wanton infliction of pain

prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294

(1991). This Court therefore concludes that the Complaint fails to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the Complaint be dismissed.

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and

Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file and serve

on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically

designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in

question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28 U.S.C.

§636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be filed

within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. F.R.

Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the

Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo

review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers,

Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 

638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

DATE: October 9, 2012 United States Magistrate Judge

2

Case: 2:12-cv-00818-JLG-NMK Doc #: 7 Filed: 10/09/12 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>